This paper shows how ambiguity arises across multiple strategizing activities through the presence of multiple strategic actors within and across different strategizing phases. During the authoring phase, the intentionality of the different management actor voices becomes detached from the meaning expressed in the strategy text, resulting in a decontextualized, monovocal strategy paper. In the translation phase, the study shows how the text still possesses an inherent multivocality making it impossible to talk about strategy text as an atemporal, neutral object. In the phase of interpreting the strategy, three main rhetorical positions are identified among the employees:acceptance, ambiguity and rejection, representing the multivocal interpretations of the employees interviewed. The study contributes to the ongoing discussion about the challenges and potentials of the multivocal, multicontextual nature of strategizing in organizations.
AlvessonM.KärremanD. (2000). Taking the linguistic turn in organizational research. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36, 136-158.
2.
AlvessonM.SveningssonS. (2003). Good visions, bad micro-management and ugly ambiguity: Contradictions of (non-) leadership in a knowledge-intensive organization. Organization Studies, 24, 961-988.
3.
AronsonJ. (1994). A pragmatic view of thematic analysis. Qualitative Report, 2(1), 1-3.
4.
BakhtinM. M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In EmersonC.HolquistM. (Eds.), The dialogic imagination (pp. 259-422). Austin: University of Texas Press.
5.
BalogunJ.JohnsonG. (2005). From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: The impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26, 1573-1601.
6.
BartunekJ. M. (1984). Changing interpretive schemes and organizational restructuring: The example of a religious order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 355-372.
7.
BienvenuS.TimmP. R. (2002). Managerial communication: Bridging theory and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
8.
BoyatzisR. E. (1998). Thematic analysis and code development transforming qualitative information. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
BrownM. H. (1986). Sense making and narrative forms: Reality constructions in organizations. In ThayerL. (Ed.), Organization and communication: Emerging perspectives (pp. 71-84). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
10.
BrunssonN. (1990). Deciding for responsibility and legitimization: Alternative interpretations of organizational decision-making. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 15, 47-59.
11.
BurkeK. (1945). A grammar of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
12.
BurkeK. (1955). A rhetoric of motives. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
13.
ClampittP. G. (2004). Communicating for managerial effectiveness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
CollinsS. (2005). Listening and responding. Mason, OH: South-Western College.
15.
CoorenF.FairhurstG. T. (2004). Speech timing and spacing: The phenomenon of organizational closure. Organization, 11, 793-824.
16.
CoorenF.TaylorJ. R.Van EveryE. J. (Eds.). (2006). Communication as organizing: Empirical and theoretical explorations in the dynamic of text and conversation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
CzarniawskaB. (2008). A theory of organizing. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
18.
DavenportS.LeitchS. (2005). Circuits of power in practice: Strategic ambiguity as delegation of authority. Organization Studies, 26, 1603-1623.
19.
DeetzS. (1995). Transforming communication, transforming business: Building responsive and responsible workplaces. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
20.
DeetzS. (2001). Conceptual foundations. In JablinF. M.PutnamL. L. (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 3-46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
DeetzS. (2003). Reclaiming the legacy of the linguistic turn. Organization, 10, 421-429.
22.
EdwardsD. (1997). Discourse and cognition. London, England: Sage.
EisenbergE. M. (1984). Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication Monographs, 51, 227-242.
25.
FairhurstG. T.CoorenF.CahillD. J. (2002). Discursiveness, contradiction, and unintended consequences in successive downsizings. Management Communication Quarterly, 15, 501-540.
26.
FernandezJ. (2004). Corporate communications: A 21st century primer. New Delhi, India: Response Books.
27.
FløttumK. (2010). EU discourse: Polyphony and unclearness. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 990-999.
28.
GioiaD. A.ChittipeddiK. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 433-448.
29.
GirouxH. (2006). “It was such a handy term”: Management fashions and pragmatic ambiguity. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 1227-1260.
30.
GoffmanE. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
31.
HendryJ. (2000). Strategic decision making, discourse, and strategy as social practice. Journal of Management Studies, 37, 955-978.
32.
HynesG. E. (2008). Managerial communication: Strategies and applications (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
33.
JablinF. M.PutnamL. L. (2001). The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
JablinF. M.PutnamL. L.RobertsK. H.PorterL. W. (Eds.). (1987). Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
35.
JarzabkowskiP. (2005). Strategy as practice: An activity-based approach. London, England: Sage.
36.
JarzabkowskiP.BalogunJ.SeidlD. (2007). Strategizing: The challenges of a practice perspective. Human Relations, 60, 5-27.
37.
JarzabkowskiP.SillinceJ. A. A.ShawD. (2010). Strategic ambiguity as a rhetorical resource for enabling multiple interests. Human Relations, 63, 219-248.
38.
JarzabkowskiP.SpeeA. P. (2009). Strategy as practice: A review and future directions for the field. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11, 69-95.
39.
JohnsonG.LangleyA.MelinL.WhittingtonR. (2007). Strategy as practice: Research directions and resources. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
40.
KingC. (2010). Emergent communication strategies. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 4, 19-38.
41.
KlenkeK. (2008). Qualitative research in the study of leadership. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
42.
KlewitzG.Couper-KuhlenE. (1999). Quote-unquote? The role of prosody in the contextualization of reported speech sequences. Interaction and Linguistic Structures, 12, 1-32.
43.
KotterJ. P. (1982). The general managers. New York, NY: Free Press.
44.
KotthoffH. (1998). Irony, quotation, and other forms of staged intertextuality: Double or contrastive perspectivation in conversation. Interaction and Linguistic Structures, 5, 1-27.
45.
LangleyA. (2007). Process thinking in strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 5, 271-282.
46.
LangleyA.KakabadseN.SwailesS. (2007). Longitudinal textual analysis: An innovative method for analysing how realised strategies evolve. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal, 2, 104-125.
47.
LüscherL.LewisM. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 221-240.
48.
MaitlisS. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 21-49.
49.
MantereS.VaaraE. (2008). On the problem of participation in strategy: A critical discursive perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 19, 341-358.
50.
MintzbergH. (1973). The nature of managerial work. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
PotterJ.WetherellM. (1987). Discourse and social psychology. London, England: Sage.
53.
PutnamL. L. (1986). Contradictions and paradoxes in organizations. In ThayerL. (Ed.), Organization and communication: Emerging perspectives (pp. 151-167). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
54.
RicoeurP. (1981). Hermeneutics and the human sciences. Essays on language, action and interpretation. In ThompsonJ. B. (Ed. & Trans.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
55.
Samra-FredericksD. (2003). Strategizing as lived experience and strategists’ everyday efforts to shape strategic direction. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 141-174.
56.
Samra-FredericksD. (2010).The interactional accomplishment of a strategic plan. In LlewellynN.HindmarshJ. (Eds.), Organisation, interaction and practice: Studies of ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 198-217). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
57.
ShannonC.WeaverW. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
58.
SmircichL.CalasM. B. (1987). Organizational culture: A critical assessment. In JablinF. M.PutnamL. L.RobertsK. H.PorterL. W. (Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 228-263). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
59.
SpeeA. P.JarzabkowskiP. (2011). Strategic planning as communicative process. Organization Studies [Special issue]. New Directions in Organizational Communication Research, 32, 1217-1245.
60.
SpradleyJ. (1980). Participant observation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
61.
TaylorJ. R.CoorenF.GirouxN.RobichaudD. (1996). The communicational basis of organization: Between the conversation and the text. Communication Theory, 6, 1-39.
62.
VaaraE. (2010). Taking the linguistic turn seriously: Strategy as a multifaceted and interdiscursive phenomenon. Globalization of Strategy Research: Advances in Strategic Management, 27, 29-50.
63.
VaaraE.KleymannB.SeristöH. (2004). Strategies as discursive constructions: The case of airline alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 1-35.
64.
Van MaanenJ. (1979). The fact of fiction in organizational ethnography. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 539-550.
65.
WatsonT. J. (1995). Rhetoric, discourse and argument in organizational sense-making: A reflexive tale. Organization Studies, 16, 805-821.
66.
WeickK. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. London, England: Sage.
67.
WeickK. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New York, NY: Random House.
68.
WeickK. E. (2001). Making sense of the organization. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
69.
WhittingtonR. (2007). Strategy practice and strategy process: Family differences and the sociological eye. Organization Studies, 28, 1575-1586.
70.
YinR. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
